ISIS has a Plan: Some Comments

Just a few clarifications of my piece on ISIS and having a plan, brought on by some fruitful discussion on the Irish Catholic Boards.

When I ask if the Church has ‘a plan,’ that probably sounds like I want the Church to have some grand master plan in which one person or one small clique is giving the orders, either on a local or global level, and the rest of us just follow along meekly and unquestioningly.

My language probably didn’t help, and as one person pointed out ISIS is a much more centralised, rigidly structured organisation than the Church, for all of its diffusiveness.

So no, I don’t think that such a situation is desirable, even if possible. But to quote one of my own replies on those boards, I think that there are three things which can be done regards ‘having a plan’ if I may use that expression in a broader sense than just the literal:

I think that rather than one big plan, there is a place for some or all of the following:

1) A clearer broad diocesan/countrywide/global vision of where we need to be at, which individual bishops or congregations could try to implement and work towards without necessarily shutting down other means, apostolates, initiatives etc… this carries the risk of those in charge trying to impose their vision on others, but I think I’m thinking in a looser sense of the diocese actually having a strategy to re-evangelise, catechise etc. that is professional, coherent, consonant with the Church’s teachings etc. rather than just lots of haphazard top-down events that don’t build on each other or towards anything (for instance, was there follow-up to the Eucharistic Congress?)

2) A greater degree of coordination between Catholic groups in a region and between regions, so that resources can be shared and people won’t double up work so much by starting a ‘new’ apostolate that is actually already going on in every other parish and need not be started from scratch; this would also make it easier to see where there IS a gap to be filled

3) A greater degree of planning, foresight and thought going into each local initiative that can more easily plug into the resources that are there. I think that the thing is to balance connectivity and coordination with creativity and individuality

Another point that comes out of this is how the Church is rather diffuse itself in many ways and everybody is free to go and follow their own projects, apostolates and initiatives. Despite having a centralised teaching authority and bureaucracy in Rome, the Church is very decentralised in general.

This is a feature, not a bug. If an organisation the size of the Church was to be monolithic, well, as one person on the Boards pointed out, it would go the way of the Soviet Union. We need different ideas, we need debate, we need diversity.

But we also need unity in that which is essential. We need an idea of where we have to get to and we need to each plan how we’re going to get there. Renewal won’t happen if we don’t look to the years ahead and plan.

Yes, the guidance of the Holy Spirit comes into this. But that same Spirit Who made us gave us the brains to think things through for ourselves.

Hopefully what I meant by ‘having a plan’ is a little clearer now…

Some Points and Corrections

Some things have been pointed out to me over the last month or two (or possibly three) which I have not yet got around to addressing.

First, in this post, I said that ‘So it was in Ireland; the seeds of faith sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow, as Jesus says, but as soon as the hot sun of materialism and secularism came out it withered away and died.’ It was pointed out to me that this was a bit sweeping, and indeed it was.

I still hold that the faith here in Ireland had many underlying weaknesses, and that this description of it has a lot of truth to it. Nevertheless, I do not wish to disparage the countless number of Irish men and women who out of genuine faith gave their lives in the faithful service of God, whether as priests and religious or as lay men and women. I have often come across debates where one person argues that the faith of the early 20th century Irish was real and another argues that it was a false veneer. I sincerely believe that this is a case of both/and; some truly longed to know, love and serve God, and others went along for the ride without letting love for God truly reach their hearts. I shall try to be less sweeping in future.

Meanwhile, some points on this post on the Four Camps.

First of all, somebody pointed out that the A-B axis has a lot of similarity with the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael division in Irish politics. Not true across the board, perhaps, but I think that there’s a lot to be said for it.

Another friend pointed out that calling these two ‘camps’ Camp A and Camp B is confusing. Which it is. I can’t seem to come up with terms that adequately define the two groups though and I want neutral terms moreover. Suggestions would be appreciated!